David M. Humphrey

The Crown appealed a trial judge's order staying the respondent's second-degree murder trial for abuse of process and unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found over 150 Charter breaches by police and Crown counsel.

On appeal, the respondent conceded the trial judge's findings were unsupportable but argued the stay should be upheld because her trial counsel's incompetence caused the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding no evidence the respondent was unaware of her counsel's strategy, and set aside the stay of proceedings and costs order, directing a new trial.

The appellant, a young person, appealed a disposition of 6 months secure custody, imposed in addition to 2 months of pre-disposition custody.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, noting the father's responsible and caring commitment to his son.

The court reduced the custodial disposition to time served (seven months) and varied the terms of the one-year probation order.

On a sentence appeal from a manslaughter conviction arising from the killing of an abusive parent, the court held that the sentencing judge committed reviewable errors in principle.

The judge applied an unduly narrow penitentiary range, failed to treat provocative conduct as relevant mitigation, and misapprehended the evidence by overstating the time between the sexual assault and the homicide.

Given the offender's reduced moral culpability, lack of record, guilty plea, trauma history, and treatment needs, the original four-year penitentiary sentence was unfit.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to time served with probation.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for pointing a firearm at her two children during an incident that occurred 19 years prior.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the complainants, despite the appellant's denial and inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and applied the burden of proof.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and a one-year conditional sentence was imposed.

The Crown appealed a decision setting aside robbery convictions on the basis that the trial judge gave no reasons for ruling incriminating statements admissible on a voir dire.

Applying the governing principle from Burns, the Court held that the absence of reasons is not, by itself, a ground of appeal where the finding is supportable on the evidence or its basis is apparent from the circumstances.

The only issue on the voir dire was credibility, and the ruling made clear that the trial judge rejected the accused's evidence.

The Court also found no error in law in the jury charge and restored the convictions.